How do you call him a two tool player? He is very good with the glove, and has a good arm for a 1b. I dont know if he can run or not, but I do know that his fielding, running, and throwing compares to any first baseman out there. His hitting for power and average are among the best of all time, but that doesnt make him a two tool player.

Give me a fucking break. He's a decent fielder but he wasn't a Schmidt or Robinson when he was at third.

Give me a fucking break. He's a decent fielder but he wasn't a Schmidt or Robinson when he was at third.

No but he was pretty good... the only reason he was ever moved was to make way for Scott Rolen, who StL got in a fleecing for a Polanco and Bud Smith.

...and Pujols is a far better hitter than either of those... no one is saying he's the greatest fielder alive, just that he's not a "two tool player." He's a four tool player at the very least. His baserunning is good, but running through stop signs and such will lead me to not giving him that quality as a "tool."

Give me a fricking break. He's a decent fielder but he wasn't a Schmidt or Robinson when he was at third.

1st, should have said he is on a GOAT pace. 2nd, who gives a fuck about the hour and a half Pujols played 3rd base? If you are going to define the value of one of the five tools a player has to offer, you have to give full consideration to the position he plays for the meat of his career. I am going to admit I dont know as much as I should to dive into this argument to say this, I didnt even know he played 3rd base, evar, but if he did, he has a damn good arm which means he is at least terrific 4 tool player for a 1st baseman playing a traditionally 2 tool position.

1st, should have said he is on a GOAT pace. 2nd, who gives a fuck about the hour and a half Pujols played 3rd base? If you are going to define the value of one of the five tools a player has to offer, you have to give full consideration to the position he plays for the meat of his career. I am going to admit I dont know as much as I should to dive into this argument to say this, I didnt even know he played 3rd base, evar, but if he did, he has a damn good arm which means he is at least terrific 4 tool player for a 1st baseman playing a traditionally 2 tool position.

He's had double digit steals (16) in a season, typically averaging 6 a season. That's a strike against speed.

He was an error generator at 3rd, with 16 errors in 96 games. He's at first because they're hiding his glove, plain and simple. That's a strike against fielding.

Arm strength isn't there either, considering his assist numbers when he played in typical fielding positions; in over 300 games in the outfield, he had 17 assists.

Pumpkin is dead-on... the guy is a two-tool player. Phenomenal at those two, certainly, but he is not the complete package. ARod is the modern guy on the pace to be GOAT.

The parks were not all huge and some that had huge deminsions in one or two areas were shorter elsewhere. For example, Ruth's right field was 295 down the line while Death Vallley was originally 460 to left center. Ruth and the Yankees played in the Polo Grounds until '23. Shaped like a giant bathtub, it was over 500 to dead center but less than 260 down the lines. And when Yankee Stadium was built, most parks seated fewer than 40,000, like Fenway. Pretty much shaped like now. So they weren't all that hard to hit homers in, once they modernized the ball.

If it so easy then why was Babe hitting so much more of them in the early 20's than anybody else?

If it so easy then why was Babe hitting so much more of them in the early 20's than anybody else?

If you look strictly at accomplishments, it's Ruth all day long. He hit more homers in one season than any team in the league combined. He was a dominant pitcher, AND the best SLUGGER ever.

But let's be honest...with the training, supplements, knowledge of kinesiology, junior development etc etc we have now, the athletes are far superior, plus of course the natural evolution as the game responds to expanded understanding, experimentation and study. If you drop Jason marquis in the 30's or 40's he probably becomes the best pitcher in the game. What would guys like Ty Cobb have done with our current development system? THAT is a great discussion. But if you don't think you could drop Pujols AS HE IS into the 1940's-50's and see numbers that are plain embarrassing, I think you're being naive.

But if you don't think you could drop Pujols AS HE IS into the 1940's-50's and see numbers that are plain embarrassing, I think you're being naive.

I think you're missing some of the points previously brought up... between expansion, dead-ball era, and travel issues, I don't think he's going to go ape-aMm against those lineups. Would he do well? Certainly.. but I don't think he's going to "Playstation" the game in that era.

Ok... you want to go there? With so many teams now how many legit MLB quality pitchers do batters face when not playing a big market team?

The level of pitching in relation to the level of batting has remained more or less constant with a few spikes here and there. Any time pitching gets too good they do something like lower the mound or tighten the winding of the balls or shrink the parks.

My point is that I believe that a change in philosophy creates a situation where you don't let a pitcher gut it out or pitch his way out of a jam and they never pitch on the same amount of rest that they did back then. I wonder if they'd had radar guns back then what a Dizzy Dean would have been throwing in the 9th inning on his 23rd complete game of the season on 3 days rest. I have a feeling that any setup man in the league these days would have comparable heat.

If you look strictly at accomplishments, it's Ruth all day long. He hit more homers in one season than any team in the league combined. He was a dominant pitcher, AND the best SLUGGER ever.

But let's be honest...with the training, supplements, knowledge of kinesiology, junior development etc etc we have now, the athletes are far superior, plus of course the natural evolution as the game responds to expanded understanding, experimentation and study. If you drop Jason marquis in the 30's or 40's he probably becomes the best pitcher in the game. What would guys like Ty Cobb have done with our current development system? THAT is a great discussion. But if you don't think you could drop Pujols AS HE IS into the 1940's-50's and see numbers that are plain embarrassing, I think you're being naive.

Sorry but you're being naive. Marquis would not be the best pitcher back then because there is more to pitching than simply athletic ability. That's why you see so many busts even today. There were guys back in the day with stuff and knew how to pitch not simply throw which you see today. You can't compare the eras because guys like Pujols wouldn't benefit from all the improved training and you can't knock guys like Ruth and Cobb because I have no doubt if you raised them up today they would still rise to the top. Baseball isn't football and hand to eye coordination is something you either have or not and vitamins and roids don't have anything to do with that.

The level of pitching in relation to the level of batting has remained more or less constant with a few spikes here and there. Any time pitching gets too good they do something like lower the mound or tighten the winding of the balls or shrink the parks.

My point is that I believe that a change in philosophy creates a situation where you don't let a pitcher gut it out or pitch his way out of a jam and they never pitch on the same amount of rest that they did back then. I wonder if they'd had radar guns back then what a Dizzy Dean would have been throwing in the 9th inning on his 23rd complete game of the season on 3 days rest. I have a feeling that any setup man in the league these days would have comparable heat.

There is more to pitching than how hard you throw. You have to realize that back in the day they actually had a strike zone and without a batting helmet guys couldn't crowd the plate so I doubt they had to throw as many pitches and they had to throw pitches they could control since they weren't going to get bailed out with a large bullpen. Guys with stuff could pitch in any era.

Sorry but you're being naive. Marquis would not be the best pitcher back then because there is more to pitching than simply athletic ability. That's why you see so many busts even today. There were guys back in the day with stuff and knew how to pitch not simply throw which you see today. You can't compare the eras because guys like Pujols wouldn't benefit from all the improved training and you can't knock guys like Ruth and Cobb because I have no doubt if you raised them up today they would still rise to the top. Baseball isn't football and hand to eye coordination is something you either have or not and vitamins and roids don't have anything to do with that.

The bolded part was my point. In the same way that George Mikan OF THE 40'S would be hurting in today's NBA, the Ty Cobb OF THE 20'S would not be as awesome in MLB today. Let him work with today's physics and kinesiology experts in the field of sports dynamics, it's a good discussion. However, dominance is dominance. Babe Ruth is the most dominant figure in sport's history, save maybe Gretzky, period. But how would he figure against pitchers like Randy Johnson? A lot of that would depend on if he was given the opportunity to modernize with all the advantages today's athletes have.

And to Alpharetta, my argument isn't that they're better today because they are better athletes. That is PART of it, but a larger part is the multi-tiered development system, the propulsion of experience and knowledge driven by an international talent pool, and the 60 years of evolution of the game built solely on the experience and experimentation of what works and what doesn't.

What the old boys would do with today's advantages we could go on about all day. But I don't see how anyone could think today's players, with all the inbred advantages they have, wouldn't dominate if dropped, as is, 40-70 years ago.

And I am no baseball expert, but I am a Cards fan. So God knows I am not THE source in this argument. But as you look at the numbers, Pujols has had as good a start as anyone, EVAR. As I said earlier, he has to stay healthy and the Cards have to stay competitive. A decade ago, we all thought Griffey ould topple records at will. Only time wil tell.

Are today's athletes better today? Sure but there were athletic freaks back then also. Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr would be great players today because hockey just like baseball has things going on that don't have to do with how quick twitch your muscles are.

Put it in a spreadsheet or something. Some columns for people to follow, not just a mass of numbers.

I included the link. You spent way more energy bitching about my sloppy posting than you would have by pointing and clicking. I guess you got your mouse confused with your gerbil and it was busy trying to scrabble out of your ass.

There's a book about Ruth's 1921 season and how he would have hit over 100 home runs under the rules of today. There were weird rules back then, such as if a ball went over the fence fair, but hooked foul after it left the yard, it was a foul ball. Also, if the ball hit the foul pole (or the fair pole ) it was ruled a ground rule double.

I forget how many it credited Ruth with, but it was in triple digits.

Logged

"I am not offended by homosexuality. In the '60s, I made love to many, many women. Often outdoors. In the mud and the rain. And it's possible a man slipped in. There would be no way of knowing."

There's a book about Ruth's 1921 season and how he would have hit over 100 home runs under the rules of today. There were weird rules back then, such as if a ball went over the fence fair, but hooked foul after it left the yard, it was a foul ball. Also, if the ball hit the foul pole (or the fair pole ) it was ruled a ground rule double.

I forget how many it credited Ruth with, but it was in triple digits.

not to mention ruth played what, 148 games?

I have nothing against maris, but his record is asterisked because he had a slower hr rate than ruth.

let's say what it is...if you go simply off what they did vs the competition, babe will never be touched. NEVER. as much as barry would like it to be, it ain't a racial thing. babe just did things in comparison no one can hope to match.

Cub fan chiming in. Pujols is the best player in the game, today. Comparing players from other decades is an unwinnable argument. Ruth only played day games, pitchers would still be in the game after 200 pitches, players did not train so they weren't as athletic, etc. Pujols gets to hit a brand new ball every pitch, Ruth may see the same ball in the 4th inning they were using in the first, Pujols has the advantage of a lighter bat, weight training, year round sport specific training, etc.

In my opinion, you put Ruth in this era, with weight training, sport specific training, smaller ballparks, and such and he hits 100 HR's a year, and has over 200 RBI every year. The man was a complete freak of nature. Gretsky is the closest comparison at having a beamonesque career like Ruth did.

This is a fun and ultimately unwinnable debate. Not the "is Pujols the greatest player ever?" debate. Even if his second 7 years are as great as the first 7, there would still be good arguments why Ruth or Mays (my pick) is still the greatest ever.

But instead the debate about if you picked a star from one era and dropped him into another era, would they be better or worse.

There's probably a dozen good reasons why Ruth would average more than 55 HR's a year if playing today and another good dozen reasons why he wouldn't. Well, maybe half dozen.

But while I agree it is almost pointless to compare players from different eras, someone above pointed out that there are freaks of nature with such obviously gifted physical abilities that you'd like to think would be great in any era. Things like hand-eye coordination or lively arms.

Not only did TEd Williams miss two different stints in his prime for war duty, guys who flew with him said he was a great fighter pilot and could have easily made that a carear. Before radar, eyesight was everything for a pilot - seeing them before they saw you - and I remember reading when he died that the guy for whom Williams played wingman said it was freaky how Williams could spot enemy airgraft before anyone else could. He easily would have hit 700 homers in my opinion but for WWII and Korea.

Bob Feller may well have gone down as no worse than the third best non-steroid using RHP ever had he not spent all of '42, '43, '44, and almost all of 1945 (he only pitched 70-something innings) in the navy as a gunner on the USS Alabama. From '39-'47, except for the years he missed, he was averaging about 25 wins per year, led the league in K's and innings pitched EVERY year, and was top 5 in ERA in 5 of those years. He was absolutely a physical freak - his rookie season he had five wins as a 17 year old - and I'm convinced he would be a dominating pitcher in any era. Upper 90's (estimated) with a great curve wins in any era.

Last I heard, he was still pitching BP in spring training in his 80's.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 02:22:56 PM by ArkGuy »

Logged

"As the leader of all illegal activities in Casablanca, I am an influential and respected man."